Faith, Science and the Persecution of Richard Sternberg

National Catholic Register ^ | October 5, 2005 | BENJAMIN WIKER

[spunkets]

"If I were to wire pain circuits in a computer, that would not cause it to get a conscious self that could feel pain."

You don't know how to do that. If you did, the being you created would feel pain. It's in the physics.

" In life (at least human life, possibly others), we have consciousness, which is not something that is even explainable in terms of matter and motion."

Maybe you can't, but others can begin to, because they have some knowledge and understanding of the processes.

" Noone is claiming (or has ever claimed in my knowledge) that there aren't physically processes involved that affect consciousness. It would be absurd to think so. But that does not indicate that the physical processes are equivalent to the conscious processes. "

Amazing. There must be some hidden, mysterious supernatural process then. If you want to study it, do so outside the science class, because it's not science.

Re:viewing mind as a machine prohibits the possibility of free will and "You should be able to prove this"

I read your reply, but your logic is bad. It starts out with a simple "if then" statement which is simply a statement of simple physics. You then skipped the machine creation part. That's the part the IDers want folks to get stuck on and forever fix as a mystery. The part where htey proclaim, the Laws of physics are insufficient. That part is important, because as I said before, the nonphysical processes require a physical machine to enable them to exist.

" If X is the result of physics, then it wasn't the result of choice."

This is true with regard to physical forces. that's it. The physical forces are what cause the machine to arise, these forces aren't the driving forces for the machine's intellectual action. The intellectual driving forces are rational thought, and/or emotion.

Emotion is trivial and so is it's companion irrational thought, so I'll drop mention of them for now. Rational thought is the mark of a sentient being. Rationality and consciousness is a funciton of the physical brain. The physics determine that the functions exist, they do not determine the output of the funcitons. The physics provides the functions.

Free will is a funciton of the physical mind. It's driven, not by physical forces, but by the nonphysical forces of rational thought.

Re:give an alternative explanation.

" There is no _need_ to do this, provided my original argument is sound."

It's always essential. We're talking about what "is", so it's fundamental. Don't attempt to wipe away what science knows and understands and then say, it's not necessary to provide an alternative explanation.

"But the answer is simple -- we have a soul."

A soul is a Heavenly body that supports the same funcitons an Earthly body supports. It's the machine based on the physics of Heaven, anologous to the Earthly machine.

Re:"Concepts can't exist w/o a physical machine to support their existence. That's axiomatic."

"Actually, it's a baseless assumption.

By the definition of the word concept, the thing that is a concept has no physical reality of it's own. It must therefore be dependent on a physical entity for it's existence. That's no assumption. It's a conclution, that I see as axiomatic.

" The history of the word is irrelevant in light of current usage. "

The gay marriage folks claim the same thing. Words have definite meaning. I firmly reject the idea that their meaning is, or should be temporal and dependent on some democratic process for present value. I believe God created the universe, but I am definitely not a creationist.

Here's a clue, Matt 12:38-39
Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."
He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."The sign of Jonah is the Holy Spirit. This statement by God says the physics are sufficient. The Holy Spirit is the bread prayed for when one recites the Lord's Prayer.

[Right Wing Professor]

The creationist myth that Richard 'von' Sternberg was persecuted for his anti-evolution position was comprehensively and remorselessly demolished on Daniel Morgan's blog this week; including some persuasive arguments for malfeasance on the putative martyr's part.

Ping to PatrickHenry, sicne I think Morgan's analysis is good enough to be archived.

[PatrickHenry]

... I think Morgan's analysis is good enough to be archived.

Evaluating ...

[VOA]

bump

[PatrickHenry]

Added to The List-O-Links in the section THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE:

NEW The Richard von Sternberg saga. The myth of the martyr who published Stephen Meyer's paper.

[RogueIsland]

The creationist myth that Richard 'von' Sternberg was persecuted for his anti-evolution position was comprehensively and remorselessly demolished on Daniel Morgan's blog this week; including some persuasive arguments for malfeasance on the putative martyr's part.

Don't interrupt the rending of the garments and gnashing of teeth with facts, RWP. It's unseemly.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You've read the paper?

Ah. Did it contain any of the following words: God, Creator, Bible, Genesis, Scripture, doctrine, Divine, Providence, Psalm, Almighty, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Savior, Adam, Eve, Satan, Eden, Sabbath, spirit, soul, angel, supernatural, heaven, hell, or eternity?

On the other hand, did it deal with concepts such as: mathematics, statistics, probability, cosmology, molecular biology, genetics, quantum physics or mechanics, information theory?

I would suggest that the former list would indicate a focus on religion, and the latter, a focus on science: something which both Meyers and von Sternberg ought to be able to have vetted by their scientific peers (which they did) and which their peers ought to be able to discuss without threats, insults and reprisals.

Unless threats, insults and reprisals are now considered part of the "scientific method."

[spunkets]

" did it deal with concepts such as: mathematics, statistics, probability, cosmology, molecular biology, genetics, quantum physics or mechanics, theory?

Did it? ID says the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the world.

Proof:

ID uses the laws of physics to model reality and make some calculation. The ID guy swears his logic is OK and his math likewise. The output of his calculation says, "the result of the calculation can't explain the observations."

There are then 2 remaining possibilities, because he swears his model is good:

1) The model is missing some -knowledge and understanding(of physics)
2) The model is right, the physics are 100% correct, that's all the physics there is, and there's an intelligent force

Take your choice:

The laws of physics are not sufficient and you abandon science to inject an IDer, else they are and you stick with science, admit ignorance and work harder. Biology is based on, and is a result of the physics. The paper Sternberg published is junk science supporting the abandonment of science. It was a call for the work to be turned over to shamans.

"I would suggest that the former list would indicate a focus on religion, and the latter, a focus on science:

I note that once the later list is knocked out, all that's left is the former.

RWP's post above gives a link with some facts regarding this case. Here's one:

"Fact 6:

The PBSW's editorial board published the following in the next issue of the journal after Sternberg had published the article for Meyer:

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.

We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (link), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings. We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (link) and contemplated improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of taxonomic biologists.

So Sternberg did in fact act against the wishes of the entire board and council of the journal and society...according to their own website."

[ml1954]

It seems to me this issue has become an attempt to force scientists, and everyone else, to take a stand. The inquisitorial question that "must" be answered is "Did an IDer create man and the universe or not?"

If one answers "there is no evidence one way or another", or "I don't know", that individual is branded as anti-God (even though no claim is made by the IDers that the IDer is God). IOW, the IDers strategy is a form of inquisition. And it is profoundly dishonest.

[Tench_Coxe]

"The U.S. Office of Special Counsel was called in to investigate. Its officials decided unambiguously in Sternberg’s favor, although officials at the Smithsonian have now stoutly refused to cooperate with the investigation. Small wonder, given their less-than-admirable methods of trying to destroy Sternberg.

Reading the Special Council’s report is an eye-opener. Before the Smithsonian stopped cooperating with the investigation, behind-the-scenes e-mail correspondence was gathered by investigators. It is clear from reading them that Smithsonian officials had little but contempt for religious believers:

“After spending 4.5 years in the Bible Belt,” said one,” I have learned how to carefully phrase things in order to avoid the least amount of negative repercussions for the kids. … The most fun we had by far was when my son refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the ‘under dog’ part.”

Charming. The e-mails reveal what is truly behind the “careful phrasing” of these scientist-administrators. They are secularist ideologues with a barely suppressed disdain for believers."

Yep. Lots of discussion about the merits of the paper and the issue. The fact the the Smithsonian now refuses to cooperate should raise a big red flag.
As I recall, the Smithsonian was also the organization that put some plaque on the Enola Gay exhibit that had veterans up in arms, and had that BS display of a pride of lions with the disclaimer that 'just because the male lion is standing in front, doesn't imply a patriarchial pride family structure' or some other PC BS.

And to see the usual suspects on this thread talking about anything *but* what actually occurred betrays an agenda ( global warming, anyone? ).

[Tench_Coxe]

"Galton had the same prejudices as the vast majority of people at the time. His view of eugenics was that the better *fit* should be encouraged to have more children. It wasn't about forced sterilization or the forced segregation of the *less fit*. It was still wrong, but it's conclusions about the relative superiority of different races and social classes was just a reflection of the prevailing views throughut Victorian educated society. Non-evolutionists came to the same conclusions but just used different arguments (many times biblical). It's almost impossible to find a non-racist from that time."

You're using an awful lot of lipstick for that pig.....
For anyone else curious, try this link: The One For Which Excuses Are Being Made

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Next time you want to ping me to something I said 2 and a half months ago, don't. Goodbye.

[Tench_Coxe]

By all means, ask the moderator to remove the thread, or have your posts deleted. I was answering on an active thread, and have received responses after almost 2 years on certain topics.
But, join your fellows and put me on virtual ignore if you wish.

[SuziQ]

Sounds like petty faculty politics.